NOTES: (1) This is not a transcript — It's the blogger's approximation, and no one really knows what that is yet! But I do know you shouldn't quote anything not in quotation marks. (2) I'll timestamp the updates and will update about every 15 minutes, servers willing. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) If you're not having enough fun just reading along the liveblog, consider buying my book on this case.

Walton: Tomorrow we'll have to break at 3:30. I've got a plea I need to make.

Glenn Kessler is up. I'll use GK for him.

David Corn says he went to high school with David Sanger and Brown U with Glenn Kessler. He voted against Sanger taking over the high school newspaper after he left.

New Defense lawyer. (I'll use D for him)

GK 9 years at WaPo, Diplomatic correspondant, travel around world with SOS, talk with anyone involved in foreign policy.

D Covered since you've been at post.

GK Almost five years.

D Have you won any awards.

GK laughs, Yes I have, twice part of groups that won Pulitzer. I've won awards.

D Direct attention to July 2003. What subjects.

GK What I cover now, US foreign policy.

D What were some of the issues.

GK a rather full range involving foreign policy. North Korean, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq.

D More specifically week of July 7, 2003. Did there come a time when you interviewed Libby.

GK Spoke to him on July 12, also July 18.

[they're constructing a timeline of all the journalists with whom libby spoke without leaking.]

GK helping a colleague who asked me to bounce some things off of Scooter.

D Did you contact them

GK No I contacted them, I also sent an email. My colleague had 5 specific questions he wanted to raise. These were the things we're hearing. Cathie gave partial answers, said Scooter would follow up.

D How did he follow-up

GK Telephone. He called me, I had heard from Cathie to expect call over weekend, I was at zoo with children, on a Saturday, on CT Avenue, the National Zoo. I had taken the questions of my colleague, they were in my pocket. I had my 3 children, who were 2, 6, and 10, I had received the call when I was in the elephant house.

D What makes it memorable for you. [note, this guy must be the good genial cop on the team. He's chatting away like it's a cocktail party.]

GK I hadn't taken many calls in the elephant house, I had to sit on a stool in the middle of the elephant house, and I had to direct my 10 year old to make sure my other children weren't absconded.

D You were able to focus.

GK With occasional pausing to yell at my son to keep an eye on the others.

D Groundrules?

2:59

GK I had had instructions from Martin and Mary Matalin that said that when Scooter says Off the record, he means Deep background. I have never discussed the topics of this subject with Fitzgerald. Libby is a confidential source. Since you're asking me, do I have permission to speak about this?

D Did you conversation have to do with Iraq and OVP?

D Did Libby say anything about Wilson's wife? Did you say anything to him.

GK No I did not.

D Are you certain about that?

GK I'm certain.

D Puts up the October 12 WaPo article.

Fitz Objection.

Kessler looks like he could be an ex-military guy, conservative hair cut, pretty big guy. He's looking around inquistively. Just saw someone and smiled big.

D Puts up the July 12 column with Libby's frantic underlines. This is an October 12 article written by Pincus and Allen. Reading from it. Did you ever discuss, were you a source for Pincus for this article? Did Libby discuss with you whether Wilson's trip was a boondoggle? Did you suggest to him in some way it was a boondoggle.

Fitz up

F Do you recall when your deposition outside GJ took place?

GK June 24?

F You appeared under oath in attorney's office, rather than before GJ?

Objection sustained

F You understand arrangement had to do with you as rep of media. You were asked qusetions limited by scope of Libby's waiver. You testified there were questions about planning for war in Iraq. In June 2004, you were not asked to testify about what the conversation was, only about whether Wilson and wife came up. Is it fair to say that arrangements did not affect truth in deposition.

F You're very clear that you did not discuss this with Pincus. Part of this is the unique memory of taking a cell phone call in the elephant house.

GK From memory as well as contemporaneous notes.

F Did you also check notes.

GK the actual notes were lost. Since I was doing a favor for a colleague, once I came back from Elephant house, I wrote up note and sent it off.

F Is it fair to say that you did nothing in terms of working with colleagues on story about Wilson's wife. You had a reaction when you read about Wilson's wife.

GK I read it in newspaper on 14th. I said Boy this is interesting.

F There's no way you had a conversation two days before.

GK I said, oh, this is news to me.

F And so that reinforces your memory that you had not conversation about this.

D Did you have an opportunity to review your notes.

GK It refreshed what the issues were, I was doing it as a favor for a colleague, they were his questions, not mine. I was able to remember what we talked about.

D This refreshed your recollection as to what you did not discuss.

Next witness–don't know who yet I'll stay here unless it is Harlow.

3:13

Fitz' line of questioning was to set up that Kessler testified under the exact same conditions as Russert, and he knew he hadn't talked about Plame since he was surprised when he read it in Novak's column.

Evan Thomas, Newsweek

Jeffress up, I'll use J and ET

ET Newsweek, 20 years, editor at large. 30 years as journalist

J Particular area of expertise?

ET No, mostly national security, politics, national news.

J Do you appear on television.

ET Sometimes.

J In July 2003, covering any particular stories?

ET We were writing about a variety of stories having to do with Iraq.

J did the issues concern pre-war intell.

ET [seems unsure] Yes, that summer,yes.

J Asks about 16 words and allegatoins.

J Do you know Scooter Libby, how many times did you talk to him?

ET A dozen times,

J all while he was ib OVP. And also Cathie Martin.

ET Originally about 9/11, then having to do with terrorist threats and invasion of Iraq.

J Do you ordinarily work on Saturdays? Do you recall taking a call from Libby that day?

ET Yes. No.

3:18

J You would return a call to Libby

ET Yes

J You have no recollectoin of doing so.

J Did you have any conversations about Wilson.

ET No.

Pass the witness.

No questions.

Next witness.

(It's like a speedway in here today)

3:20

New Defense Guy (we're joking this is like emptying the bench at the end of a game)

Carl Ford (I'll use CF and D), I have a one-person consulting company. It doens't sound very good just to say Ford, so I call it Ford and Associates. Had been working at Cantor Partners. I was EVP of Cassidy and Assc. It's a lobbying firm. I was Asst SOS 2001 until 2003.

D What is Intelligence and Research

CF It's part of intell community, but we're part of state. Take info from intell community and provide it to people at state.

CF Most of my reporting to Powell, Armitage, occasionally to Grossman.

D Direct attention to June 2003, did there come a time when Grossman requested you provide info on issues relating to Iraq's attempt to acquire yellowcake. Precise date?

CF First week or so in June.

D Impersonal request? Anything to fix date.

CF It was an unusual request, I'd had a handful of requests, never about WMD and Iraq, just the fact that he asked about that meeting,

D Senior staff meeting,

CF Grossman chaired, SOS normaly chaired himself, on those occasions when he was traveling, Armitage took his place. Armitage not there, I was not privy to where he was at that point.

3:26

Putting up calendar.

D Taking a look at June 9, Monday, does that help refresh the date he asked you to provide information

CF It was Monday June 9

D Did Grossman tell you why he wanted it. Did he recall asking you because Libby requested the information? Is that the kind of info you would recall. After Grossman asked you to find out, what did you do?

CF Called people in INR responsible for following WMD issue. Neil Silver, I gave him the assignment I just received.

D Was a memo created to capture that info?

CF Yes.

[gives him a memo; btw, just a reminder, Ford is the guy who said Bolton was a knock down drag out guy.]

CF memo created in response to Grossman's request. Grossman didn't request you put it in memo.

D Top corner, date.

CF June 10, 2003.

D How long did it take you and your staff to prepare this

CF less than a day

D Do you know who Walter Kansteiner is

CF Asst SOS for Africa

D How long had you known him,

CF We were in many of the same meetings. There were at least one or two occasions in which we worked with Africa Bureau and I went down and talked about the project. We had more than just recognizing name relationship.

D Was Mr. Kansteiner, did you have any meetings or relations with Kansteiner in doing this memo

CF No, I did not.

D Was there a point when Grossman indicated to you that the info was somehow incomplete?

CF I don't recall anything of that nature. I don't recall him saying anything about the memo after it went to his office.

Pass the witness.

Zeidenberg up for Fitz

Z Fair to say this report would have been delivered to Grossman, either on June 10 or July 11.

CF It would have been hand-carried to his office. As soon as we could get it to him.

Witness dismissed

3:35

We've run out of witnesses for the day, I guess all the Pulitzer prize-winners who spoke to Libby and didn't speak about Wilson are done.

Now we've got to continue the memory issue.

Cline up, 3 categories of evidence. 2 potential categories of witnesses. One category, Witnesses from OVP. A representative witness, this witness is current NSA to VP [John Hannah], at the time we're talking about Mr. Libby's deputy. This is a person who took direction from Libby, met with him, briefed him, knew as well as anyone the issues Libby was grappling with. We want to put him on to describe nature of Mr. Libby's duties at the time, volume of info, the range of issues, AFAIK, govt has no problem with that. We would also want to ask him about specific issues about the 9 topics, he and Mr Libby were focused on. To covey to jury a sense of volume he was dealing with.

Bonamici. That's a pretty broad description. It's not clear to us from that description, there's no way to determine the info they want to elicit from Hannah. In the general sense, the volume of info, in terms of pages and numbers of issues, and a general sense of the range of issues. We can't tell what that means, or whether Hannah would be competent to testify.

C WRT Mr. Hannah, there were certain areas, IE middle east, where he was Dpty in charge of that area. For those areas, I'd walk though the details in form of leading questions. Other areas, where he's well aware of what was responsible.

Walton He has first hand knowledge about that first area.

C He was doing the ME stuff every day. For areas personally familiar with but did not have principle responsibility. We'd ask what the issue was, was it a focus of OVP

Walton You'll have to be more specific than OVP

C Mr Libby, that would be his testimony

Walton so long as he has first hand knowledge.

C He does, we'll lay that foundation before we move into it. The other cateogory of witnesses, morning briefers, we'd like to elicit from the briefer the items during the two weeks in June and July and the June 23, which is the Miller conversation. We're not getting into any details, bc we don't have them. We're not even going to elicit all the items, we're going to pick the ones that were in the 9 topics. With the exception of June 14, Schmall's briefing, the info that may or may not have been transmitted. for that one, I'd like to have him testify to topic summaries, so jury has range of information, so they know that if those words were spoken how it is he may have missed or forgotten about it. One line topic summaries. The brief descriptions that were in the terrorist list.

Bonamici. Back to Hannah's list. What precise topics, both generally and specifically. There was a huge amount of info covered in the 2.5 months of CIPA. There's no practical way to include everything. It seems to us that it's reasonable to get. This is something that is really brand new.

Walton, maybe you can discuss them.

C I don't have a problem describing what they'll be in some detail. Iran, Iraq, ME, Turkey. Small piece of Topic one, terroist threats.

Fitz Can I make a suggestion. When we went through the 2.5 months about what was coming in and what wasn't. Your honor gave deference to let in more levels of detail when it was let in bc the defendant was going to testify about that level of detail. All we're asking, since the narrative is laid out, if these are going to be leading questions, can we know what the questions are going to be. Cline could circle what he would cover. We can look to see if anything was only let in because your honor only let it in bc Libby was going to testify that he was consumed by it. It's not fair to us, having spent 2.5 months slogging through it, to suddenly say the outer limit is okay.

Walton, it would be appropriate for you all to meet, and go over what he intends to bring out.

Fitz nodding, Bonamici nodding.

Our level may be very small or large.

Bonamici. Back to the discussion that we had before. Evidence already come in about MIBs and they lasted half hours and a number of topics. WRT specific items that were covered you previously found there was a lack of foundation to explaining the importance that Libby attached to these briefings. The CIA made a decision to put this in, other than the issues that Libby requested f-up, there's no evidence that suggests Libby attached ANY importance on items he did not request f-up on. WRT June 14, that's something that your honor has not yet ruled on CIPA, so that would need to be addressed.

C In terms of foundation Schmall testified on Cross that he would select items that were of interest to Libby. With that evidence, along with evidence that Libby would read this, I think it is a fair inference that this was important to him.

Walton I don't know how it can be classified of significant to him unless he says that out of his mouth. If his deputy says he worked on the matter that he worked and spent X amount of time on it, the mere fact that he was briefed on it, it seems to me, it can't be done.

C The deputy will testify that the 9 topics were day in and day out of significance. Each of the topics falls within the 9 topics.

Walton if he was briefed on those topics, if his deputy says they worked on it.

B The morning intell briefings carry dates. There may be some dates that the deputy can talk about on which stuff was worked on. What we're trying to do is draw an inference that Libby received a briefing on a particular day, that w/o asking more, with none of that evidence to draw a link between that briefing and what was important to Libby. We're asking the jury to infer that he was CONSUMED by this.

Walton If at that time they were working on it on a daily basis.

C These were the issues. that's why back in the CIPA process, these really were the ones.

B We would suggest that only if there's additional foundation.

Walton, it depends on what the deputy says, if he can say that even though he may not have been briefed, he can say this was something that was higher on our agenda. I think that's probably sufficient for the jury to infer.

B We would ask for an opportunity to assess what Cline will give us. We need to know in advance.

Walton, I think it will probably be a sufficient foundation.

C One suggestion on statement. May I suggest you table the statement until you've heard from the other witnesses.

B We object. We can always address it later.

Walton My concern, if a party is going to be held to agree to submission, it's unfair. we want juries to decide cases based on facts. If a party will agree to facts with an understanding of how that evidence will be presented, that's fair game. My understanding was that Mr. Libby was going to testify. That would be the predicate for the vast majority of the information they jury is going to hear. To put his mental state before the jury is just unfair. I'll defer the ruling. I don't necessarily agree with govt's arguments in second paragraph, but the third paragraph I do agree with their redact re the last three paragraphs. They do indicate what defendant's state of mind was. In my view it wasn't clear that they were being asked to make that concession.

B The truth is we did assume that Libby was going to testify, and we did so because Mr Cline asked us to assume that. Everything we did was based on the asumption and it would be fundamentally unfair to hold us to an agreement we made based on those assumptions.

Fitz, May I approach for one minute.

4:02

Walton Seems to me that it's proper to bring out the fact that she did not work with WINPAC

Fitz Here are the simple facts January 2000 forward, she worked at CPD and not at WINPAC. If the defense were to ask them, did you check whether she worked at WINPAC, we would ask if she worked at CPD.

Walton The defense inquiry was to show the accuracy of the info that he alleged to relay to others.

F We've alleged that he's also relayed CPD to other people, Mr Fleischer. There's no classified info involved. We're trying to show that some of the info was sometimes accurate. Even if it was also inaccurate.

Jeffress. As we've discussed before, we're not entitled to discovery on what her job was. Worked out an instruction. We're trying to establish a fact. It's a very specific fact that's necessary to combat Ms Miller's testimony. If Miller heard that, she heard that somewhere else.

Walton Defense only wants to bring it out for impeaching Ms Miller. If they're only bringing out for that purpose. Why can you bring out that she worked at CPD bc Libby allegedly said that to other people.

F First, in the earlier conversation, he said she worked at the bureau, she understood that to be Nonproliferation.

Walton if she said that she construed what he was saying as an indication that Plame worked in that division, it can only come out if it meets the force of what the Defense brings out.

F If he told her wrong one day, the other day it was close to what it says.

Jeffress, I remember showing her that NP is in State, not in CIA.

Walton, if she's saying that he told me that, if that were not in play, then I agree, If she says that he also said that she worked in CP even though there may not be an exact name of that bureau. It meets the force of what you're saying.

J All her notes show is "wife works in bureau ?"

Walton I'm not bound by what's in her notes. I jsut don't think it'd be fair to let you show where she did not work, if in fact her testimony suggested it gave a name to where she actually worked.

F Your honor, I can cite at least part of the transcript.

4:14

Walton Why should you be able to rehabilitate her consistent to what she thought rather than what he said? They're going to bring out the fact that she actually said that he said she worked at WINPAC.

[Of course, this all assumes that LIbby didn't specifically tell her WINPAC so she could leak that, without quite leaking Plame's CPD employ...]

Walton She's being impeached, based on what she said. How can she be rehabilitated based on her perception of what he said.

F He used the word bureau. She has also said she knew it was CIA. Doesn't it show that if her understanding of the conversation turns out to be correct? Doesn't that rehabilitate her memory.

F She based this on a conversation that she participated in. Understanding that wife worked in nonproliferation.

Walton, she specifically said he said WINPAC.

F We did bring it out, as to what her understanding was

Walton how can you do that without info on where she actually worked

F That's the point.

Walton, you may have been able to bring this out during your case. What you bring out to rehabilitate has to meet force of impeachment.

Fitz The rule of completeness, I've never seen before where we ask someone to come and say she didn't work in one place but did work in another. Why doesn't it go to the weight.

Walton they're saying if she got it wrong, it would be inconsistent since Libby knew where she worked. They're suggesting that should be used to discredit her testimony. I'm having a hard time concluding that once they do that you bring out what she assumed they said. It just doesn't seem to me to be appropriate rehabilitation.

Fitz the supposition is in the record.

Walton She said WINPAC but she also felt she was also saying CPD.

Jeffress What he said was that the wife worked in the bureau. She said, I thought he was using the word bureau to mean NP bureau, but I wasn't sure. And, there is no NP bureau in the CIA.

The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Emptywheel is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that. Also, please be judicious in your use of comments (see below), and how often you refresh them, to reduce demands on the servers.

Peterr wrote:

A few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers. .

FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.

Here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:

1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a short snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.

2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.

3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.

4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.

5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.

6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.

Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.

If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.

That’s also how Emptywheel makes her updates on the action in the courthouse. It keeps all the courtroom action in one place. Have mercy on the servers, and don’t keep pounding away at them by reloading the page every 30 seconds to find The Latest New Thing. If she can wait 20 minutes to update, you can wait 20 minutes to reload.

And if you’re able, toss a few $$, euros, shekels, or other fun currencies into the FDL donation basket at the bottom of the post. That’s what makes this all possible.

A pattern emerges as emptywheel notes. They’re constructing the timeline of a gaggle of reporters (I won’t call them journalists) who were on the receiving end of leaks from a plethora of sources, e.g. Ari, Armi, Rove, but not Libby. The reporters who spoke to Libby didn’t learn the Plame identity from him. Ergo, since Libby also spoke with many reporters it’s plausible that he did, in fact, hear for the first time that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA from a reporter during the course of his conversations with them.

That’s my take on Team Libby’s strategery. They certaily seem to be hammering on the “everybody knew” theme.

Somehow i have the feeling that even if the defense manages to get a hundred Pulitzer prize winning journalists on the stand telling them they spoke with Libby during the fateful week, and Libby didn’t say anything to them about Wilson’s wife, it won’t help the defense in the slightest since Fitz can easily argue that OVP was interested in spreading this kind of touchy info only to journalistic media where they could “control the message”.

A pattern emerges as emptywheel notes. They’re constructing the timeline of a gaggle of reporters (I won’t call them journalists) who were on the receiving end of leaks from a plethora of sources, e.g. Ari, Armi, Rove, but not Libby. The reporters who spoke to Libby didn’t learn the Plame identity from him. Ergo, since Libby also spoke with many reporters it’s plausible that he did, in fact, hear for the first time that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA from a reporter during the course of his conversations with them.

That’s my take on Team Libby’s strategery. They certaily seem to be hammering on the “everybody knew” theme.

is there any precident for this type of argument being a successful defense?
it just strikes me as ‘longshot-ish’

It was just this great big swirl of gossip and innuendo,with everyone and his grandmother talking to everyone else, so how is Scooter supposed to remember who got what information from whom? It’s all just a terrible misunderstanding, don’t you know, and this is just a silly trial about nothing.

Condor – I think it can be worse than that for the defense – that the jury may well surmise that all of these “non-Plame” phone calls were deliberate on the part of Scooter (and others), particularly the Saturday ones – it seemed awfully important that Scooter be “on the record” with reporters (even if off the record otherwise) of not speaking about Plame.

Sometimes you can be too clever as an attorney, and it never a good idea to assume that a jury is going to see the evidence the way you do or you think they should.

That being said, I don’t think the defense has much else it could go on, and since the odds are greatly against them anyway, it’s worth a shot.

So how many times are we going to hear that many journalists didn’t know who Valerie Plame was until they read it in Novak’s column? And don’t all these journo’s testifying to that fact actually undercut Libby’s defense that everyone knew or that it was a well known fact among journo’s and reporters? And if reporters had conversations with LIbby and he didn’t tell them about it, it doesn’t disprove he lied under oathe to the FBI or GJ.

And for those reporters who did know and didn’t learn from Libby, that also still does not counter that LIbby lied to the FBI or to the Grand Jury.

There is ostensibly no connection at all to the alleged crimes. It’s puzzling, to say the least. So what have we got here?

1. Inept counsel
2. Stalling for time
3. Wells has the mother of all aces in the hole

Choice (1) is the only one that makes complete sense, but I doubt it. The others raise more questions than they answer. Cheney taking the stand could be part of it.

On another note, is there going to be a closed portion of this trial where classified information is going to be discussed? I thought I saw something about that earlier. Will the jury be present for that evidence? Could Cheney’s testimony be given during that phase of the trial, depriving all of us from ever knowing what he said, never mind what questions were asked?

Condor – I think it can be worse than that for the defense – that the jury may well surmise that all of these “non-Plame” phone calls were deliberate on the part of Scooter (and others), particularly the Saturday ones – it seemed awfully important that Scooter be “on the record” with reporters (even if off the record otherwise) of not speaking about Plame.

Sometimes you can be too clever as an attorney, and it never a good idea to assume that a jury is going to see the evidence the way you do or you think they should.

That being said, I don’t think the defense has much else it could go on, and since the odds are greatly against them anyway, it’s worth a shot.

Yes.

If someone did something illegal covertly, it might make sense to be seen publicly doing something similar but not illegal, so you have plenty of witnesses who saw you engaged in the similar general behavior without the illegal element.

As angel said, just becuase he didn’t tell everyone, it doesn’t mean he didn’t tell anyone. They had a leak phone tree. each one called their three favorite stooges and leaked. then they talked to other reporters in the coming weeks and let the other reporters who had been leaked (to, on?) leak back to make it seem “like everyone already knew”. IT’s grade school rumor mongering.

I’m surprised that Fitz hasn’t tried to use some of these reporters to knock down the “if he didn’t leak it to everybody, he didn’t leak it to anybody” defense. He’s had a whole parade of journalists, each of whom have probably been on the receiving end of an intentional leak, each of whom could probably testify that in their experience, the information is not “seeded” broadly.

I’m surprised that Fitz hasn’t tried to use some of these reporters to knock down the “if he didn’t leak it to everybody, he didn’t leak it to anybody” defense. He’s had a whole parade of journalists, each of whom have probably been on the receiving end of an intentional leak, each of whom could probably testify that in their experience, the information is not “seeded” broadly.

And why did Carl Ford, the intel guy, testify? So many questions. Questions.

Thomas testified as yet another journalist Libby spoke with in the relevant period, and about matters in the ballpark of the Wilsons, and yet to whom Libby did not leak about Plame.

As for Ford, I think what’s going on is that the defense is assembling the parts of the narrative about the role of Armitage and the State Department in the acquisition and dissemination of information about Plame, which supports Libby’s claims that in fall 2003 he felt that he was being picked on for his possible role in the leaking, when really it was others.

TPhillips – You left out the most obvious, and most likely, possibility: its the best defense they can present based on the evidence. Do you actually believe that the majority of defenses presented in criminal cases seem plausible or even make sense to a disinterested observer? This also does double duty for the inept counsel speculation.

There is no “ace up the sleeve.” Apart from discovery rules, etc., or the specific crimes for which Scooter is on trial (no one can break down on the stand and state they committed the murder lies), if they did have an “ace” they would have played it long ago.

Delaying for time? Your talking about a couple of days (a week at most), and how that extra time might benefit them isn’t is lost upon me.

In this respect, the Libby trial is like most criminal trials – the gov’t presents a lot of evidence, the defense comes up with some not so believable (if at least applicable to the charge) theories of innocence, and the person is convicted. I can (if I try real hard though it does make me cranky) understand why people would think the Libby trial would be different from your usual criminal trial, but it isn’t and most high profile cases aren’t (an exception would be the OJ trial).

The case is interesting from what it reveals about potential other crimes and and who might be accused of them, but from a trial-centric point of view regarding the guilt or innocence of Libby on the trials, its pretty much like any other criminal trial.

CIA agent says he was fired over Iraq WMD intel. U.S. News: “A federal judge has ruled that a CIA agent identified only as ‘Doe,’ allegedly fired after he gathered prewar intelligence showing that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction, can proceed with his lawsuit against the CIA.” 1:10 pm | Comment (34

MAN OH MAN OH MAN

time for those responsible for treason against America to be held to account

Late Afternoon – Robert Novak talks to a nominative stranger (a friend of Wilson) who approaches him on the way to taping Crossfire, that he believes that Wilson’s wife had something to do with Wilson’s appointment to investigate the yellowcake claim in Africa.

My friend, without revealing that he knew me, asked Novak about the Uranium controversy. It was a minor problem, Novak replied, and opined that the administration should have dealt with it weeks before. My friend then asked Novak what he thought about me, and Novak answered: “Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him.” (Joseph Wilson, Politics of Truth)

Maybe they’re working up to Andrea Mitchell. A parade of journos all saying they didn’t know about Plame until reading Novakula’s column. But there was one person, Andrea Mitchell, who declared very publicly, that “everyone knew”. She recanted that statement later, but gosh darn it Libby can’t have a fair trial unless we can get her on the stand and ask her exactly what she meant when she said it, and why she later retracted it. She could very well be the only person who could expose Timmeh as a liar. That would certainly help Libby.

And if Mitchell decides to fight the subpoena to testify, blammo! A 6 week delay. Delay for what? is the question, but it sure seems like that’s one of Team Libby’s near-term goals.

I’m still amazed that the most recognizable name in newspaper reporting today finds himself in the middle of one of the biggest stories of the day, and goes right on writing yet another hagiography of the Bush administration.

EPU – I hear what you’re saying, but there are many aspects of this trial that are quite dissimilar to other run-of-the-mill criminal trials. Starting with the $5mil defense fund. Your average schlub crook lawyers up with whatever lawyer he can afford, and unless the perp’s a druglord or mob guy (or OJ), he’s not going to get a high caliber defense team.

Another obvious possibility is that they just don’t care what happens. It’s been whispered in their ear that a presidential pardon will be forthcoming. The Libby Whisperer, if you will. If you know that’s going to happen then you don’t really care what happens.

Now, if a pardon were in the offing you wouldn’t expect Team Libby to try very hard to throw the WH under the bus. Have they been doing that? Vigorously? I’m not sure.

Sorry abotu the long update. I was distracted by the fight—it’s my favorite one in this case, Libby trying to slink out of his promise (To Walton) to testify.

I’d dearly love to know what the jury’s thinking about all this. Do they realize that Team Libby obviously thinks that they are dumber than peat moss and far more easily distracted by nonsense? Judge Walton sounds as if he’s having a hard time keeping from hauling off and smacking Wells on the kisser, what with how Wells is running out the clock with all his obfuscatory maneuvers.

EPU – I hear what you’re saying, but there are many aspects of this trial that are quite dissimilar to other run-of-the-mill criminal trials. Starting with the $5mil defense fund. Your average schlub crook lawyers up with whatever lawyer he can afford, and unless the perp’s a druglord or mob guy (or OJ), he’s not going to get a high caliber defense team.

Another obvious possibility is that they just don’t care what happens. It’s been whispered in their ear that a presidential pardon will be forthcoming. The Libby Whisperer, if you will. If you know that’s going to happen then you don’t really care what happens.

Now, if a pardon were in the offing you wouldn’t expect Team Libby to try very hard to throw the WH under the bus. Have they been doing that? Vigorously? I’m not sure.

We know that Team Libby will appeal a guilty verdict — and with $5 million to blow, they can do it.
But:

The longer this drags on, both trial and appeal, the closer it gets to the official start of the 2008 campaign season — which will piss off Republicans hoping to distance themselves from Bush’s corrupt shadow. And a pardon from Bush late in the game (say, after Libby loses on appeal, which will be round about the time the nation gears up for the primaries) would essentially hand the Democrats not just the White House, but 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress.

So running out the clock and burying the jury in bullshit is a dangerous strategy for Team Libby.

Anyone else find it interesting that Matalin and Martin would “instruct” reporters that when Libby spoke “off the record” he really meant “deep background.” What else did they “instruct” reporters about?

Michael Isikoff writes in Newsweek with an important point: If Libby’s lawyers want Cheney to testify, they’d better act quick.

Cheney “is due to leave the country for a 10-day trip to Asia on Feb. 19.

“So conveniently or not, the vice president’s loyalty to his former top aide may now run smack up against the imperatives of U.S. foreign relations. The vice president recently called Libby ‘a strong friend and supporter.’ But Cheney already has meetings scheduled with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, according to a recent press release from his office that has gotten virtually no media attention.”

Another obvious possibility is that they just don’t care what happens. It’s been whispered in their ear that a presidential pardon will be forthcoming. The Libby Whisperer, if you will. If you know that’s going to happen then you don’t really care what happens.

Now, if a pardon were in the offing you wouldn’t expect Team Libby to try very hard to throw the WH under the bus. Have they been doing that? Vigorously? I’m not sure.

In their opening statements the defense said they would make the case that Libby was scapegoated. Maybe that was to send a message? If they got a response subsequent to the opening then – yes – it could explain why they have not pursued it since. A quid-pro-quo?

Would this be something the prosecution can legally ask of the defense? Do they even care, so long as they get him convicted?

EPU – I hear what you’re saying, but there are many aspects of this trial that are quite dissimilar to other run-of-the-mill criminal trials. Starting with the $5mil defense fund. Your average schlub crook lawyers up with whatever lawyer he can afford, and unless the perp’s a druglord or mob guy (or OJ), he’s not going to get a high caliber defense team.

Another obvious possibility is that they just don’t care what happens. It’s been whispered in their ear that a presidential pardon will be forthcoming. The Libby Whisperer, if you will. If you know that’s going to happen then you don’t really care what happens.

Now, if a pardon were in the offing you wouldn’t expect Team Libby to try very hard to throw the WH under the bus. Have they been doing that? Vigorously? I’m not sure.

If Libby were convicted, the pardon would come before the end of Bush’s term, and possibly before all appeals were resolved. If convicted, Libby would be disbarred, and acceptance of a pardon would likely keep him that way. Although he can be sure of a right wing foundation/think tank sinecure anyway, I’m sure he does not want to be disbarred….

Reading over the fight flap… Team Libby wants to drag out a parade of OVP minions to talk about the 9 areas poor Scooter was consumed with during those weeks. Judge Walton says that’s fine, but Libby himself has to testify that those 9 areas were important to him. He personally has to tell the court that; otherwise it’s just hearsay.

Libby can’t take that chance. Why not? Because they were cherry-picking the intel they wanted. The briefers and liasons and NatSec guys could have been briefing Libby et al on a hundred topics a day, but 99% of it went in one ear and out the other. Consider this hypothetical exchange:

Fitz: Mr. Libby, for weeks your attention was riveted on these other matters?
Scooter: Yes sir.
Fitz: On Iran, on terrorists, on North Korea?
Scooter: Yes, sir.
Fitz: And you were really focused in on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, were you not?
Scooter: Oh, yes, Mr. Fitz.
Fitz: Mr. Libby, who was the foreign minister of Iraq at the time?
Scooter: Ummmmmmm……… Ed Norton?

It would be too easy. Libby can’t take that chance. They were single-mindedly fixing intelligence around the policy. They were dealing with very few facts. A little pop quiz by Fitz that Libby fails handily would spell disaster.

Reading today’s transcript, especially at the end, I feel like a medieval peasant at a Latin Mass. I know what’s being said is very important for warding off evil, and I’m doing my best to go along with it, but I really can’t understand any of it.

I hope EW/RH/Jeralyn/LHP/someone posts tonight with what’s going on here…

I’m still amazed that the most recognizable name in newspaper reporting today finds himself in the middle of one of the biggest stories of the day, and goes right on writing yet another hagiography of the Bush administration.

Plan of Attack, my ass. More like Flat On My Back.

Good one. You are absolutely right. Once a professor of truth, Woody is ninety percent republican sycophant.

jess at 104 — if they are publicly available materials, then yes. But if it was material prepared for the grand jury’sinvestigative purposes, then it remains sealed with the grand jury unless and until other proceedings are brought by them. This is to protect “innocent accused” who may have also been investigated and later cleared by the grand jurors for whatever reason.

…so where’s the coverage of Anna Nicole’s death? What is this trial even about? My sources on talk radio had me believing they weren’t actually holding the trial because of a crime…though doubling back on that now, it does seem foolish to have a trial without a crime in play…

i just get the sense that the defense is piling on voluminous snowbanks of procedural poo and irrelevant testimony, in order to put the jury and the public permanently to sleep, hopefully to mitigate the chances of there being an actual conviction in this case

could Fitz charge in on his rhetorical pony and save the day for truth, justice, and the American Way in his closing arguments? one prayz

Defense is trying to change the subject of the trial, into who leaked on Plame. Fitz has to give his spiel about how perjury equals throwing sand in the prosecution’s eyes to throw off an investigation of a serious crime (whether the crime itself was done by the defendant or by someone else), so it has to be punished as harshly as the crime being investigated, no matter who the perp was (or whether the crime even took place). He did a good job of that argument at the press conference a ways back and I’m surprised he didn’t make it in his opening statement at trial. I guess he can do it at closing.

As angel said, just becuase he didn’t tell everyone, it doesn’t mean he didn’t tell anyone. They had a leak phone tree. each one called their three favorite stooges and leaked. then they talked to other reporters in the coming weeks and let the other reporters who had been leaked (to, on?) leak back to make it seem “like everyone already knew”. IT’s grade school rumor mongering.

So how many times are we going to hear that many journalists didn’t know who Valerie Plame was until they read it in Novak’s column? And don’t all these journo’s testifying to that fact actually undercut Libby’s defense that everyone knew or that it was a well known fact among journo’s and reporters? And if reporters had conversations with LIbby and he didn’t tell them about it, it doesn’t disprove he lied under oathe to the FBI or GJ.

And for those reporters who did know and didn’t learn from Libby, that also still does not counter that LIbby lied to the FBI or to the Grand Jury.

And that would make it seem that Libby would be suspicious when Russert said all the journalists KNOW…because none of these were asking him about her.

But if they DID know then why tell them something that they ALREADY WOULD KNOW!

Doesn’t make any sense.

Libby told them because they DIDN’T KNOW…he was passing on to some reporters her association and leaving others in the dark….perhaps to build an alibi.

If I were Cheney, I would not be available. I’d let Libby go under the bus. After all, I am used to letting people die. It’s known as “the cost of doing business,” or “collateral damage.” Scooter will understand that I run the risk of getting impeached. That would be worse. For me.

As President; I mean VP, I am more important. So, Let my press guy sink into the abyss. Better he, than me.

(I’ll draft a pardon and get my little Billy puppet to sign it as soon as Scooter is convicted! I promise. I like Scooter.)

Michael Isikoff writes in Newsweek with an important point: If Libby’s lawyers want Cheney to testify, they’d better act quick.

Cheney “is due to leave the country for a 10-day trip to Asia on Feb. 19.

“So conveniently or not, the vice president’s loyalty to his former top aide may now run smack up against the imperatives of U.S. foreign relations. The vice president recently called Libby ‘a strong friend and supporter.’ But Cheney already has meetings scheduled with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Australian Prime Minister John Howard, according to a recent press release from his office that has gotten virtually no media attention.”

Sorry abotu the long update. I was distracted by the fight—it’s my favorite one in this case, Libby trying to slink out of his promise (To Walton) to testify.

Apart from watching the slinkiness, I mean.

Marcie, are you going post a wrap-up as a main post. Are all you all swimming in that beer?

;-)

Seriously, I feel like I’m not swimming in the transcripts at all, but drowning. I bet that at least one other lurker feels that way. . . . .

Well we did learn that Novak meets with his good friend Richard Hohlt EVERY DAY! Richard Hohlt who is one of the Bush-Cheney key advisors, who raised more than $250K for their Presidential Campaign and is a major lobbyist and contributor to other Right Wing Zealots!

Marcy,
Thanks for your continuing coverage. Its great! Good to see you on the Politics.tv segments, too!

I know that us firedogs have little sympathy for Judy Miller. However, the Frontline Special tomorrow night raises a bunch of serious questions, among which is the freedom of the press to protect its sources. Watergate would not have turned out the way it did, for example, if Bob Woodward had been compelled to reveal who Deep Throat was, early on.

So does it come down to this: for the sake of protecting the Deep Throats of the future, is it necessary to allow the Judy Millers of the present to protect their sources?

And when protection of sources works in favor of an administration that is manipulating the press to control news coverage in support of its agenda as the White House did in 2001 – 2004, how do we sort all this out? Is additional legislation concerning freedom of the press needed to cut this Gordian Knot?

I would like to see you and the rest of the FDL team covering the Libby trial write a response to the Frontline program, looking backward to Watergate, from the vantage-point of the Libby trial, and looking forward into the future, about the role of the press in these matters, and what protections are appropriate?

I wish I had more time to read every blog the FDL team is writing about the Libby trial, and every comment on each blog. Its fascinating stuff, and I love the FDL community that you have created. Please keep up the good work!